Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
  • Randhir Singh, J.
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
  • Randhir Singh, J.
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The opposite party filed a suit for recovery of rent at a certain rate, which was contested by the defendant-applicant on the ground that the claimed rent was not the agreed rent. The suit was decreed against the defendant-applicant, who then filed a revision that remains pending before the Court. Subsequently, another suit was instituted for recovery of rent for subsequent years and for ejectment of the defendant-applicant. The defendant-applicant applied for a stay of this later suit under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), but the learned Munsif refused the stay, holding that Section 10 CPC did not apply. The defendant-applicant filed the present application in revision against this refusal.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether an order passed under Section 10 of the CPC constitutes a ‘case decided’ attracting the provisions of Section 115 CPC and is therefore subject to revision.
  2. Whether the subsequent suit for recovery of rent for subsequent years and ejectment is barred or stayed by virtue of Section 10 CPC due to pendency of the earlier suit for recovery of rent for an earlier period.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Sahdeo Singh v. Mt. Chanun Kuer, AIR 1928 Oudh 355 Held that a revision against an order passed under Section 10 CPC could be entertained as it was a ‘case decided’. The Court noted this view but declined to follow it, distinguishing it from the current position.
Madan Mohan v. Kamla Narain Dube, AIR 1934 All 520 Held that an order under Section 10 CPC is not a ‘case decided’ and does not attract Section 115 CPC; thus, revision cannot be entertained. The Court adopted this precedent, relying on an earlier Full Bench decision, to hold that the present revision application is not maintainable.
Gargi Din v. Debi Charan, AIR 1929 All 805 Held that suits for recovery of rent for different periods are not the same matter in issue; Section 10 CPC does not apply. The Court applied this principle to find that the subsequent suit for recovery of rent for later years and ejectment is not barred by the earlier suit.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court examined the applicability of Section 10 CPC, which bars proceeding with a suit if another suit involving the same parties and the same cause of action is pending. It first addressed the procedural question of whether an order refusing stay under Section 10 CPC is a ‘case decided’ amenable to revision under Section 115 CPC. The Court rejected the older view from Sahdeo Singh and followed the binding precedent in Madan Mohan v. Kamla Narain Dube, holding that such orders are interlocutory and not ‘cases decided’, hence not revisable.

On merits, the Court analyzed the facts that the first suit was for recovery of rent for a particular period, while the second suit concerned rent for subsequent years and ejectment. Applying the principle from Gargi Din v. Debi Charan, it held that the matters in issue in the two suits are not the same and therefore Section 10 CPC does not apply to stay the later suit.

Holding and Implications

The Court dismissed the application for revision.

This decision directly affects the parties by upholding the refusal to stay the subsequent suit under Section 10 CPC. The Court reaffirmed the principle that orders under Section 10 CPC are interlocutory and not revisable under Section 115 CPC, thereby limiting the scope for such revisions. No new precedent was set beyond reaffirming existing case law.

Show full summary ...

    Bhola Prasad v. Jagpala

    1. This is an application in revision against an order passed by the Munsif, South Lucknow, refusing to stay a suit on an application of the applicant under Section 10 of the CPC.

    2. It appears that the opposite party filed a, suit for recovery of rent at a certain rate. The suit was contested on the ground that the rate of rent claimed by the plaintiffs was not the agreed rent.

    3. The contention of the defendant was repelled and the suit was decreed. The defendant-applicant then went in revision and the revision is pending before this Court.

    4. In the meantime another suit for the recovery of rent for subsequent years for ejectment of the defendant-applicant was instituted. The defendant-applicant then made an application for the stay of this later suit under Section 10 of the CPC, but the application was rejected by the learned Munsif on the ground that S. 10 of the Code had no application to the facts of the case. He has now come up in revision.

    5. Reliance has been placed on the reported case — ‘Sahdeo Singh v. Mt. Chanun Kuer’, AIR 1928 Oudh 355 (A) in which it was held that a revision against an order passed under Section 10 of the CPC, could be entertained as it should be held to be a ‘case decided’. This view was, however, not accepted by this Court in — ‘Madan Mohan v. Kamla Narain Dube’, AIR 1934 All 520 (B). The Avadh ruling has been discussed in this reported case and has been dissented from. This decision in AIR 1934 All 520 (B) is based on an earlier Full Bench decision of this Court. The current view, therefore, of this Court is that an order passed under Section 10 of the CPC, is not a case decided and does not, therefore, attract the provisions of Section 115 of the CPC. The application cannot, therefore, be entertained.

    6. Even on merits, the application has no force. The earlier suit was for recovery of rent for a certain period and the subsequent suit is for recovery of rent for the subsequent years and for ejectment. It has been held in — ‘Gargi Din v. Debi Charan’, AIR 1929 All 805 (C) in a similar case for recovery of rent that the matter in issue in the two suits would not be deemed to be the same and Section 10 of the CPC, would not be applicable.

    7. The application for revision is, therefore, dismissed.

    H.G.P

    8. Application dismissed.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Bhola Prasad v. Jagpala
    (Sep 1, 1954)